4 ms·

> There are a chain of media reports which inaccurately portray what Stallman was saying. Here for example https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist

> There are a chain of media reports which inaccurately portray what Stallman was saying. Here for example https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns-from-mit-csail-and-the-free-software-foundation/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard... It went from "defended Minsky", to "Victims Were ‘Entirely Willing’" to "defended Epstein". > Stallman was trying to defend Minsky who had sex with someone I think that he was just trying to be rational. But being rational against a lynching mob is not a good idea (and hasn't ever been in human history). > but in the context of defending Minsky and in the venue they were wildly inappropriate and indefensible Would you mind expanding on that? Say that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process?

colechristensen 7y ago
There is a rational thing RMS was doing, supposing that Minsky's accuser would have appeared willing to him with the implication that in there was a defense for Minsky's behavior (hypothetical or not). The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing. Everything else is irrelevant. And it wasn't a situation where there was the slightest bit of ambiguity. 17 and 73. Billionare's private island. Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. There might be a very narrow context in which a discussion of that nature would be appropriate. Where it happened was a million miles from there.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing How is that a problem exactly? > 17 and 73 Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes? Because I am pretty sure that most 17 year olds can easily be confused with 18 year olds and the reverse. > Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. In our current "cancel culture" society, agree.
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    >Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes? An 18 year old prostitute is extraordinarily likely to be in that situation as a result of a lifetime of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that for sexual pleasure, especially at the age of 73, makes you a terrible person. An old man taking advantage of a young woman is the issue. One year and tiny permutations of the details which change the legal situation do not change the moral situation that in any similar situation, the old man is a indefensible scumbag. It doesn't matter if it is a hypothetical or not, defending that old man by saying the victim would have presented herself as willing, is a big issue. Not a witch hunt, not mob rule.
    - frabbit 7y ago
      That is a good point. And it seems that it applies to prostitution at other ages too. But a lot of sex workers would challenge that.
    - setr 7y ago
      The defense was on the part of whether it should be (morally) considered rape/sexual assault, not on whether it should have taken place at all.
KirinDave 7y ago
I'm sorry, but functionally the problem witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults. While I think there is a good argument to be made that kids can and should have control of their own sexuality, suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." No one in a position to cause this outcome didn't read the original statements. Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding (or that this was an isolated incident of RMS's sexism, for that matter) is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults With what sentence? > was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults Legally in most places they can, legally in the place that this happened I think that they could not. Is there a problem with this statement? > suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." Appeared entirely willing (to Minsky and to anyone else that Epstein invited in his island) != being entirely willing herself. > RMS's sexism Would you mind showing to me where is the sexism in anything that Stallman said regarding Epstein?
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    No, I am not going to restate widely available and widely read public documents for your pleasure. I do not believe that you are confused about this.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      I am confused because I have read said publicly available documents myself and I was unable to find any instance of sexism by Stallman in them.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        Perhaps you should use a better search engine. Several people have gone to great lengths to document this adequately and in public. If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.
Fins 7y ago
>> ay that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process? It's an interesting point given that there actually is a certain strain of Stalin's apologists that reply to any critique of their idol with "yeah, and he also drank blood and ate little children for breakfast".

colechristensen 7y ago

There is a rational thing RMS was doing, supposing that Minsky's accuser would have appeared willing to him with the implication that in there was a defense for Minsky's behavior (hypothetical or not). The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing. Everything else is irrelevant. And it wasn't a situation where there was the slightest bit of ambiguity. 17 and 73. Billionare's private island. Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. There might be a very narrow context in which a discussion of that nature would be appropriate. Where it happened was a million miles from there.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> The problem is defending a man accused of statutory rape by saying his accuser appeared willing How is that a problem exactly? > 17 and 73 Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes? Because I am pretty sure that most 17 year olds can easily be confused with 18 year olds and the reverse. > Defending that situation - real or hypothetical - is very problematic. It gets you fired. In our current "cancel culture" society, agree.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  >Would her being a 18 prostitute change anything in your eyes? An 18 year old prostitute is extraordinarily likely to be in that situation as a result of a lifetime of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that for sexual pleasure, especially at the age of 73, makes you a terrible person. An old man taking advantage of a young woman is the issue. One year and tiny permutations of the details which change the legal situation do not change the moral situation that in any similar situation, the old man is a indefensible scumbag. It doesn't matter if it is a hypothetical or not, defending that old man by saying the victim would have presented herself as willing, is a big issue. Not a witch hunt, not mob rule.
  - frabbit 7y ago
    That is a good point. And it seems that it applies to prostitution at other ages too. But a lot of sex workers would challenge that.
  - setr 7y ago
    The defense was on the part of whether it should be (morally) considered rape/sexual assault, not on whether it should have taken place at all.

KirinDave 7y ago

I'm sorry, but functionally the problem witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults. While I think there is a good argument to be made that kids can and should have control of their own sexuality, suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." No one in a position to cause this outcome didn't read the original statements. Suggesting that this is all a big misunderstanding (or that this was an isolated incident of RMS's sexism, for that matter) is not only slanderous, but its profoundly disrespectful to all parties.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> witb that sentence was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults With what sentence? > was suggesting that minors can consent to sex with adults Legally in most places they can, legally in the place that this happened I think that they could not. Is there a problem with this statement? > suggesting a young woman forced into sexual servitude by a monstrous sex slave merchant was "entirely willing." Appeared entirely willing (to Minsky and to anyone else that Epstein invited in his island) != being entirely willing herself. > RMS's sexism Would you mind showing to me where is the sexism in anything that Stallman said regarding Epstein?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  No, I am not going to restate widely available and widely read public documents for your pleasure. I do not believe that you are confused about this.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    I am confused because I have read said publicly available documents myself and I was unable to find any instance of sexism by Stallman in them.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      Perhaps you should use a better search engine. Several people have gone to great lengths to document this adequately and in public. If you want to argue with someone about the definition of sexism, you should go argue with them and stop wasting my time.

Fins 7y ago

>> ay that someone claimed that Stalin drank the blood of his victims, would it be "inappropriate and indefensible" to try to debunk such a claim (and thus defend Stalin) in the process? It's an interesting point given that there actually is a certain strain of Stalin's apologists that reply to any critique of their idol with "yeah, and he also drank blood and ate little children for breakfast".